He says it in Timothy, St. Paul says: “The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” All people. So he wants salvation. He doesn’t delight in the death of sinners. He doesn’t want hell. He doesn’t make hell and he doesn’t cause hell (...) And this is the judgment: that light is shining in the darkness, but some people prefer darkness; they choose darkness, because their deeds are evil.(....)He is raised and glorified, and his Cross is the balance beam of judgment. We will stand before it, and he will look at us, and he will pronounce what we [ourselves] have decided, according to what we [ourselves] have done. Jesus is the Judge, and what a marvelous Judge he is! He judges by not judging. He judges by showing mercy, and he asks us to show mercy, too: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” But if we are not merciful, then that judges us. If we are not loving, if we don’t love light, if we don’t love truth, that judges us.

So we do sort ourselves, in that the way we orient our lives makes manifest whether we prefer light or darkness. But in the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man seems to be saying, "I didn't understand, but now I realize my mistake! Please help!" He doesn't seem to prefer darkness. He'd change if he could. Is it too late?

"The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to think that this could possibly happen. But how do I reconcile that hope with this parable?

He says it in Timothy, St. Paul says: “The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” All people. So he wants salvation. He doesn’t delight in the death of sinners. He doesn’t want hell. He doesn’t make hell and he doesn’t cause hell (...) And this is the judgment: that light is shining in the darkness, but some people prefer darkness; they choose darkness, because their deeds are evil.(....)He is raised and glorified, and his Cross is the balance beam of judgment. We will stand before it, and he will look at us, and he will pronounce what we [ourselves] have decided, according to what we [ourselves] have done. Jesus is the Judge, and what a marvelous Judge he is! He judges by not judging. He judges by showing mercy, and he asks us to show mercy, too: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” But if we are not merciful, then that judges us. If we are not loving, if we don’t love light, if we don’t love truth, that judges us.

So we do sort ourselves, in that the way we orient our lives makes manifest whether we prefer light or darkness. But in the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man seems to be saying, "I didn't understand, but now I realize my mistake! Please help!" He doesn't seem to prefer darkness. He'd change if he could. Is it too late?

"The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to think that this could possibly happen. But how do I reconcile that hope with this parable?

If the rich man really does not prefer the hell( darkness), he should ask Abraham to get him away from Hell. But he does not. He just ask Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, and then continue staying in hell( darkness).

Anyway , it is just my thought. Is there any other comments on the parable of rich man and Lazarus?

He says it in Timothy, St. Paul says: “The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” All people. So he wants salvation. He doesn’t delight in the death of sinners. He doesn’t want hell. He doesn’t make hell and he doesn’t cause hell (...) And this is the judgment: that light is shining in the darkness, but some people prefer darkness; they choose darkness, because their deeds are evil.(....)He is raised and glorified, and his Cross is the balance beam of judgment. We will stand before it, and he will look at us, and he will pronounce what we [ourselves] have decided, according to what we [ourselves] have done. Jesus is the Judge, and what a marvelous Judge he is! He judges by not judging. He judges by showing mercy, and he asks us to show mercy, too: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” But if we are not merciful, then that judges us. If we are not loving, if we don’t love light, if we don’t love truth, that judges us.

So we do sort ourselves, in that the way we orient our lives makes manifest whether we prefer light or darkness. But in the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man seems to be saying, "I didn't understand, but now I realize my mistake! Please help!" He doesn't seem to prefer darkness. He'd change if he could. Is it too late?

"The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to think that this could possibly happen. But how do I reconcile that hope with this parable?

If the rich man really does not prefer the hell( darkness), he should ask Abraham to get him away from Hell. But he does not. He just ask Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, and then continue staying in hell( darkness).

Anyway , it is just my thought. Is there any other comments on the parable of rich man and Lazarus?

This seems to be a general theme. Christ says that in the outer darkness there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Those sent to Hell are frustrated at their lot and wish to escape from it, but they cannot repent. It's only after the rich man is confronted with suffering that he begins to regret his former life, but then it's too late. There's no repentance in Hades.

He says it in Timothy, St. Paul says: “The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” All people. So he wants salvation. He doesn’t delight in the death of sinners. He doesn’t want hell. He doesn’t make hell and he doesn’t cause hell (...) And this is the judgment: that light is shining in the darkness, but some people prefer darkness; they choose darkness, because their deeds are evil.(....)He is raised and glorified, and his Cross is the balance beam of judgment. We will stand before it, and he will look at us, and he will pronounce what we [ourselves] have decided, according to what we [ourselves] have done. Jesus is the Judge, and what a marvelous Judge he is! He judges by not judging. He judges by showing mercy, and he asks us to show mercy, too: “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy.” But if we are not merciful, then that judges us. If we are not loving, if we don’t love light, if we don’t love truth, that judges us.

So we do sort ourselves, in that the way we orient our lives makes manifest whether we prefer light or darkness. But in the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man seems to be saying, "I didn't understand, but now I realize my mistake! Please help!" He doesn't seem to prefer darkness. He'd change if he could. Is it too late?

"The Lord desires that all men would be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." I want to think that this could possibly happen. But how do I reconcile that hope with this parable?

If the rich man really does not prefer the hell( darkness), he should ask Abraham to get him away from Hell. But he does not. He just ask Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, and then continue staying in hell( darkness).

Anyway , it is just my thought. Is there any other comments on the parable of rich man and Lazarus?

This seems to be a general theme. Christ says that in the outer darkness there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Those sent to Hell are frustrated at their lot and wish to escape from it, but they cannot repent. It's only after the rich man is confronted with suffering that he begins to regret his former life, but then it's too late. There's no repentance in Hades.

THe sinners in hell cannot repent and there is no repetntance in hell anymore.

It is because God will not give the sinners in hell any chance to repent ? Or GOd will no longer accept their repentances? Or the sinners themselves are not willing to repent after they go to hell ?

If the rich man really does not prefer the hell( darkness), he should ask Abraham to get him away from Hell. But he does not. He just ask Abraham to send Lazarus to cool his tongue, and then continue staying in the place of torments.

That's a good observation. I was scouring old threads to see if this had been discussed before, and I came upon Orthodox View of the Rich Man and Lazarus? from last year. John Ward suggested something similar to what you're saying, but I don't know if this is a common opinion.

Just use the people who get addicted to smoking, drug, alcohol, gambling as example. We will know how the situation of the rich man in hell is.

When people get addicted to smoking, drugs, alcohol, gambling, they would feel pain and uncomfortable.However, they still enjoy doing so. They will also feel sarrow, frustrated, but they still enjoy smoking, gambling, taking drugs and drinking alcohol . They also want to get away from all these pains and torments (which come from smoking, gambling , taking drugs and drinking alcohol) , but they still enjoy doing so and most of them still cling to these sins in the end of their life.

Most of the people who get addicted to smoking, drugs, alcohols know what they do is wrong and they are in pain, so they do not want their son, daughters or other family members imitate them and suffer these pains with them.

I think this can help us understand how the conidition of the rich man( who get addicted to sins) is in hell.

Just use the people who get addicted to smoking, drug, alcohol, gambling as example. We will know how the situation of the rich man in hell is.

But addicts are not lost causes, especially when they have the help of community. Is that why, through the prayers of St. Varus, people who have died outside the Church have made it to Heaven? And I feel like I read a story about a wicked monk who went to Hell, but through prayers, his spiritual child was able to save him.

I was looking for more info on the Rich Man and Lazarus, and found this excerpt from Life After Death by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos. It's all a fantastic read, but this part seemed particularly relevant:

Quote

According to the teaching of the holy Fathers, when a person enters into repentance, the stage of purification, he progresses continually. Perfecting continues both in the `intermediate’ stage and in the life after the Second Coming. The stages of the spiritual life are purification, illumination and deification. These are not to be conceived as water-tight states, but as degrees of participation in the grace of God. If a person is struggling to be purified, the grace of God which is purifying him is called purifying energy. When the nous is illuminated, it means that it is receiving the energy of God which illuminates it, and this is called illuminating energy. And when he is in the process of deification, this happens by the grace of God which is called deifying. The process is continuous. Thus those who have repented before their soul’s departure from the body, progress and become increasingly receptive to uncreated grace. Therefore we hold memorial services and pray for those who have fallen asleep.

However, since those who did not repent before their soul left the body do not have spiritual vision, they experience only the caustic energy of God and will never participate in the good. But we pray for all, because we do not know their inner spiritual condition.

Again, I'm not sure how this fits in with the cases of St. Varus or the wicked monk, but if Metropolitan Hierotheos covers everything in this description with the same thoroughness as when he talks about the rich man and Lazarus, I may be getting a new book.

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

The idea of conditional immortality of the soul would appear to have considerable support from the Fathers. I should think this would be an acceptable theologoumenon for an Orthodox Christian.

I don't think he was talking about the conditional immortality of the soul, but the eternity of Hell. The belief that Hell is not eternal is a heresy, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. As far as I can tell, the OO believe this, too. Everyone will be resurrected: some to eternal joy, others to eternal torment.

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

The idea of conditional immortality of the soul would appear to have considerable support from the Fathers. I should think this would be an acceptable theologoumenon for an Orthodox Christian.

I don't think he was talking about the conditional immortality of the soul, but the eternity of Hell. The belief that Hell is not eternal is a heresy, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. As far as I can tell, the OO believe this, too. Everyone will be resurrected: some to eternal joy, others to eternal torment.

Did you read the article? If so, you cannot think that. It is called "The Immortality of the Soul", not "Eternal Hell".

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

The idea of conditional immortality of the soul would appear to have considerable support from the Fathers. I should think this would be an acceptable theologoumenon for an Orthodox Christian.

I don't think he was talking about the conditional immortality of the soul, but the eternity of Hell. The belief that Hell is not eternal is a heresy, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. As far as I can tell, the OO believe this, too. Everyone will be resurrected: some to eternal joy, others to eternal torment.

Did you read the article? If so, you cannot think that. It is called "The Immortality of the Soul", not "Eternal Hell".

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Um, why are you changing the subject? Yeshuaisiam was pointing out that the eternity of Hell is not up for discussion. You bring up the question of whether the soul is immortal by nature or by grace, which is a red herring.

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

No, I was responding to the quote above.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

The idea of conditional immortality of the soul would appear to have considerable support from the Fathers. I should think this would be an acceptable theologoumenon for an Orthodox Christian.

I don't think he was talking about the conditional immortality of the soul, but the eternity of Hell. The belief that Hell is not eternal is a heresy, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. As far as I can tell, the OO believe this, too. Everyone will be resurrected: some to eternal joy, others to eternal torment.

Did you read the article? If so, you cannot think that. It is called "The Immortality of the Soul", not "Eternal Hell".

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Um, why are you changing the subject? Yeshuaisiam was pointing out that the eternity of Hell is not up for discussion. You bring up the question of whether the soul is immortal by nature or by grace, which is a red herring.

I am responding to the quote above

Quote

the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire

, with an article which you incorrectly interpreted. If the soul is conditionally immortal, this statement is false. That much should be clear.

the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire

, with an article which you incorrectly interpreted. If the soul is conditionally immortal, this statement is false. That much should be clear.

I think either you're misreading the sentence you've quoted or misunderstanding the distinction that Jonathan was making. What you've quoted does not say that the soul will burn eternally but that the fire in which it burns is eternal. There is a distinct difference. Even if the soul were to be consumed in that fire that would not mean that the fire itself is not eternal - indeed when you think of said fire as the inescapable love of God (which I doubt is an idea that is unfamiliar to you) how could it possibly be anything but eternal? Whether or not the soul is only conditionally immortal is, as Jonathan said, a red herring. As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him. That still doesn't mean hell is not eternal.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire

, with an article which you incorrectly interpreted. If the soul is conditionally immortal, this statement is false. That much should be clear.

I think either you're misreading the sentence you've quoted or misunderstanding the distinction that Jonathan was making. What you've quoted does not say that the soul will burn eternally but that the fire in which it burns is eternal. There is a distinct difference. Even if the soul were to be consumed in that fire that would not mean that the fire itself is not eternal - indeed when you think of said fire as the inescapable love of God (which I doubt is an idea that is unfamiliar to you) how could it possibly be anything but eternal? Whether or not the soul is only conditionally immortal is, as Jonathan said, a red herring. As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him. That still doesn't mean hell is not eternal.

James

I agree with much of this and am fine with the idea that hell is eternal, the flame is eternal, and the punishment--separation from God-- is eternal. The important distinction is that whilst the soul may burn in the eternal fire, the soul does not necessarily burn eternally.

Quote

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

Now you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing no straw man. Not only could it be consistent with what Archpriest Florovsky wrote, I was saying exactly the same thing. What I meant is that I can't see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for another option. In other words, I only differed with you on whether or not the position is a theologoumenon - that would mean it was consistent with but not required by Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the belief that only God is inherently immortal is not a required belief in Orthodoxy.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

ABSOLUTELY the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire where the worm never dies. Not trying to be insulting, but this belief is seriously Orthodox 101 folks.

No, I was responding to the quote above.

We must have had different teachers. Archpriest George Florovsky, for example:

Quote

Are Christians, as Christians, necessarily committed to the belief in the Immortality of the human soul? And what does Immortality actually mean in the Christian universe of discourse? These questions are by no means just rhetorical ones. Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an Immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable, the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man." The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul.

The idea of conditional immortality of the soul would appear to have considerable support from the Fathers. I should think this would be an acceptable theologoumenon for an Orthodox Christian.

I don't think he was talking about the conditional immortality of the soul, but the eternity of Hell. The belief that Hell is not eternal is a heresy, condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. As far as I can tell, the OO believe this, too. Everyone will be resurrected: some to eternal joy, others to eternal torment.

Did you read the article? If so, you cannot think that. It is called "The Immortality of the Soul", not "Eternal Hell".

Why are you trying to change the subject?

Um, why are you changing the subject? Yeshuaisiam was pointing out that the eternity of Hell is not up for discussion. You bring up the question of whether the soul is immortal by nature or by grace, which is a red herring.

I am responding to the quote above

Quote

the Eastern Orthodox Church believes that HELL is a place where the person/soul in hell burns in eternal fire

, with an article which you incorrectly interpreted. If the soul is conditionally immortal, this statement is false. That much should be clear.

I don't see anywhere in this article where Fr Florovsky entertains the idea that one's torments in Hell will not be eternal. I think you missed the part about the General Resurrection. First, eternal joy in Paradise, or eternal torment in Gehenna, will not be experienced by the soul alone, but by both soul and body. Second, it's an unquestioned belief that everyone will be resurrected at the last day. The only difference is that some will experience it as joy, others as torment, depending on how they are judged. There is no teaching that some people will eventually die completely, either ending their joy in Paradise or their torment in Gehenna. So yes, the conditional immortality of the soul, which is perfectly Orthodox in itself, does not mean you can hope that those cast into Gehenna will escape. Remember, there is no logical reason why this hypothetical final mortality which you talk about should only apply to those in Hell; why not to those in Heaven, too? But Christ has clearly promised us that whatever happens to us after death and judgment will last forever.

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

Now you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing no straw man. Not only could it be consistent with what Archpriest Florovsky wrote, I was saying exactly the same thing. What I meant is that I can't see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for another option. In other words, I only differed with you on whether or not the position is a theologoumenon - that would mean it was consistent with but not required by Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the belief that only God is inherently immortal is not a required belief in Orthodoxy.

James

You are right, I did misunderstand you and you in fact go farther that what I was saying. I wonder if the consistent witness of the Church suggests this is a "required belief" as you call it.

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

Now you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing no straw man. Not only could it be consistent with what Archpriest Florovsky wrote, I was saying exactly the same thing. What I meant is that I can't see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for another option. In other words, I only differed with you on whether or not the position is a theologoumenon - that would mean it was consistent with but not required by Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the belief that only God is inherently immortal is not a required belief in Orthodoxy.

James

You are right, I did misunderstand you and you in fact go farther that what I was saying. I wonder if the consistent witness of the Church suggests this is a "required belief" as you call it.

Yes.

Annihilationism is a heresy.

Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt

If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.

Quote from: orthonorm

I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

Now you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing no straw man. Not only could it be consistent with what Archpriest Florovsky wrote, I was saying exactly the same thing. What I meant is that I can't see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for another option. In other words, I only differed with you on whether or not the position is a theologoumenon - that would mean it was consistent with but not required by Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the belief that only God is inherently immortal is not a required belief in Orthodoxy.

James

You are right, I did misunderstand you and you in fact go farther that what I was saying. I wonder if the consistent witness of the Church suggests this is a "required belief" as you call it.

As for conditional immortality of the human soul, I don't think it's a theologoumenon at all. I fail to see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for any conclusion other than that only God is immortal and that all creation is sustained by Him.

Now you are arguing a straw man, since what you've quoted could be perfectly consistent with the notion, explained by Archpriest Florovsky, that the soul apart from God is natural and mortal, and its immortality is only sustained by Him--I.e. conditional immortality.

Now you've misunderstood me. I'm arguing no straw man. Not only could it be consistent with what Archpriest Florovsky wrote, I was saying exactly the same thing. What I meant is that I can't see how Orthodoxy leaves any room for another option. In other words, I only differed with you on whether or not the position is a theologoumenon - that would mean it was consistent with but not required by Orthodoxy. I fail to see how the belief that only God is inherently immortal is not a required belief in Orthodoxy.

James

You are right, I did misunderstand you and you in fact go farther that what I was saying. I wonder if the consistent witness of the Church suggests this is a "required belief" as you call it.

Yes.

Annihilationism is a heresy.

Which Ecumenical Council declared that? I must have missed that. Local council of Kiev?

I think conditional immortality is neither dogma nor heresy but rather just theologoumenon.

I think conditional immortality is neither dogma nor heresy but rather just theologoumenon.

To me you seem to be coming at this in rather a legalistic fashion. I don't doubt that there's no dogma declared by an Ecumenical council regarding conditional immortality of the human soul, but I fail to see how it can possibly be a permissible belief that the human soul is inherently immortal given that we believe that all existence is dependent on God and especially given that Scripture clearly identifies God as the only immortal:

I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. 1 Timothy 13 -16

I don't know about you but I don't believe we need the decision of an Ecumenical council before we take Scripture into account.

James

Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos

I think conditional immortality is neither dogma nor heresy but rather just theologoumenon.

To me you seem to be coming at this in rather a legalistic fashion. I don't doubt that there's no dogma declared by an Ecumenical council regarding conditional immortality of the human soul, but I fail to see how it can possibly be a permissible belief that the human soul is inherently immortal given that we believe that all existence is dependent on God and especially given that Scripture clearly identifies God as the only immortal:

I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate, that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ’s appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. 1 Timothy 13 -16

I don't know about you but I don't believe we need the decision of an Ecumenical council before we take Scripture into account.

James

This is a funny thread. You are challenging me to consider conditional immortality as received doctrine, whilst another poster is challenging me and suggesting that it is heresy (or at least that annihilationism is). I am feeling squeezed in the middle of two antipodal forces.

Actually, I agree with you that we believe a lot of things that are not declared dogma, for example the Dormition of the Theotokos. Yet if conditional immortality is part of the Deposit of the Faith, I would want to see examples not just from Scripture, but also the Fathers (I know there are plenty), liturgy, icons and hymns. If you could show me examples from the last three--liturgy, icons and hymns--I would be more convinced that your (and my) understanding of Scripture on this issue is correct. Otherwise, your interpretation of Scripture could just be criticised as an innovation (I do not think it is). Would that it were doctrine, but I think it is more like theologoumenon.